---------------------------------------------------------- Kitfox-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 03/13/05: 62 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:36 AM - [off-topic] PocketFMS (Michel Verheughe) 2. 05:10 AM - Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS (Clem Nichols) 3. 05:16 AM - why do some hate kitfoxes? (Clifford Dow) 4. 05:46 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Michel Verheughe) 5. 05:55 AM - Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS (Michel Verheughe) 6. 06:14 AM - Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS (Clem Nichols) 7. 06:25 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Cudnohufsky's) 8. 06:26 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (flier) 9. 06:32 AM - New to this forum (Cliff Olson) 10. 06:39 AM - Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS (flier) 11. 06:39 AM - Gear question (Werner Keiper) 12. 06:50 AM - Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor (Michel Verheughe) 13. 07:07 AM - Fuel Leaking (Dee Young) 14. 07:43 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Clifford Begnaud) 15. 07:46 AM - Re: Gear question (Ben Baltrusaitis) 16. 08:26 AM - Re: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor (jimshumaker) 17. 08:47 AM - Re: [off-topic] PocketFMS (jimshumaker) 18. 08:49 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Randy Daughenbaugh) 19. 08:57 AM - Re: New to this forum (Randy Daughenbaugh) 20. 09:33 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Donna and Roger McConnell) 21. 10:30 AM - Re: Is this legitimate? (Bruce Harrington) 22. 10:44 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Bruce Harrington) 23. 10:47 AM - Re: New to this forum (Bruce Harrington) 24. 11:14 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Tom Tomlin) 25. 11:26 AM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Cudnohufsky's) 26. 11:59 AM - Demagnetizing Frame (Guy Buchanan) 27. 12:06 PM - Not Much Room (Guy Buchanan) 28. 12:29 PM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (kurt schrader) 29. 12:34 PM - Re: Not Much Room (Michel Verheughe) 30. 12:45 PM - Smart Single Instruments by MGL Avionics (Jimmie Blackwell) 31. 12:53 PM - Re: Not Much Room (kurt schrader) 32. 12:59 PM - more header tanks & fuel sensors (Marco Menezes) 33. 01:30 PM - Re: more header tanks & fuel sensors (kurt schrader) 34. 02:15 PM - Re: Florida Trip (Fox5flyer) 35. 02:15 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame (Jim Hakes) 36. 03:09 PM - Re: Florida Trip (Torgeir Mortensen) 37. 03:10 PM - Re: Not Much Room (Steve Zakreski) 38. 03:27 PM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Brian Rodgers) 39. 03:29 PM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? VIDEO? (Aerobatics@aol.com) 40. 03:41 PM - Re: Capacitor (Torgeir Mortensen) 41. 03:48 PM - Re: Florida Trip (kurt schrader) 42. 04:07 PM - Re: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor (Torgeir Mortensen) 43. 04:30 PM - Re: more header tanks & fuel sensors (AlbertaIV@aol.com) 44. 04:31 PM - Re: Florida Trip (Fox5flyer) 45. 05:08 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame - Part one. (Torgeir Mortensen) 46. 05:12 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame - Part two. (Torgeir Mortensen) 47. 05:14 PM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Bruce Harrington) 48. 05:55 PM - Re: Florida Trip (Fred Shiple) 49. 06:21 PM - why do some hate kitfoxes? (Tom Tomlin) 50. 06:24 PM - Why I like my Kitfox (Cliff Olson) 51. 06:38 PM - Re: longest build time (Marco Menezes) 52. 06:51 PM - Re: why do some hate kitfoxes? (Clem Nichols) 53. 08:01 PM - Covering (Joel Mapes) 54. 08:44 PM - Re: Covering (Randy Daughenbaugh) 55. 08:50 PM - Re: Not Much Room (Guy Buchanan) 56. 08:50 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame - Part two. (Guy Buchanan) 57. 08:50 PM - Re: Not Much Room (Guy Buchanan) 58. 08:50 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame (Guy Buchanan) 59. 09:04 PM - Re: longest build time (Rick) 60. 09:39 PM - Re: Demagnetizing Frame (Jim Hakes) 61. 09:50 PM - Re: longest build time (Rick) 62. 10:35 PM - Re: Smart Single Instruments by MGL Avionics (r.thomas@za.pwc.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:36:56 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe Hello Kitfoxers, I have been using a cool freeware program called PocketFMS to do my flight plans. http://www.pocketfms.com/ Yes, it is mostly European but I am sure, with time, our American friends will find it interesting too. It's free, you can download maps, navaids, metar, etc. You can plan your flight and, if you have a pocketPC, you can connect it to your GPS and used it as a moving map, in-flight. You can also scan your own maps and overlay them. You can also upload your scanning to their site so that other people can share it. That's what I have started doing for the Norwegian "VFR - Light Aircraft Routes." At the time being, I only use it on my PC, at home, but I intend to buy a PocketPC to have in my Kitfox. BTW, they call the route to the next waypoint: TT (true track) as it is given in true north compass notation. .... hummmm! Bloody Europeans!!!! :-) Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:10:54 AM PST US From: "Clem Nichols" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" Michel, et al: I've been playing with the PocketFMS program for several months now. I've been disappointed with the viewability on my iPAQ 2210 PDA, however. Even though it has what I think they call a transreflective screen which is supposed to be easily seen in direct sunlight, I find it hard to see even on a bright, overcast day. This problem is, no doubt, compounded by the transparent canopy in the IV's cockpit. Moreover, the flight data numbers on the moving map page (altitude, speed over ground, heading, etc.) are quite small which adds to the problem. I might suspect my aging eyes, but I have no difficulty at all seeing the data on my little Magellan 315 GPS receiver. I have no reason to think that this problem would be any better on any of the other commercially available navigation programs such as Anywhere Map, Airgator, etc. If anyone in the group knows of a screen overlay or something of that nature that would help, I would appreciate hearing from them. I may try adding some type sunblocker to the canopy which would also make things a little cooler in the summer. I'm not certain that even that would make the PDA a useful navigational tool, however, because I've played with it in my car, and even there have to get the viewing angle just so in order to see what's on the screen. Clem Nichols ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > Hello Kitfoxers, > > I have been using a cool freeware program called PocketFMS to do my flight > plans. > > http://www.pocketfms.com/ > > Yes, it is mostly European but I am sure, with time, our American friends > will > find it interesting too. > It's free, you can download maps, navaids, metar, etc. You can plan your > flight > and, if you have a pocketPC, you can connect it to your GPS and used it as > a > moving map, in-flight. You can also scan your own maps and overlay them. > You > can also upload your scanning to their site so that other people can share > it. > That's what I have started doing for the Norwegian "VFR - Light Aircraft > Routes." > > At the time being, I only use it on my PC, at home, but I intend to buy a > PocketPC to have in my Kitfox. > > BTW, they call the route to the next waypoint: TT (true track) as it is > given > in true north compass notation. .... hummmm! Bloody Europeans!!!! :-) > > Cheers, > Michel > > do not archive > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005 > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:16:14 AM PST US From: Clifford Dow Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a piece of overpriced crap!!"" he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to me? am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc. I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox? Thanks cliff DO NOT ARCHIVE --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:46:07 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe Clifford Dow wrote: > "That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a piece of overpriced crap!!"" I can't help you, Cliff, because I love my Kitfox and I have no other experience. I came to aviation only two years ago. Much like you, before I bought my Kitfox, I heard people saying that it was a difficult plane to fly, nothing for a beginner, old technology and not fit for this century. Yet I found in Tango (that's my Kitfox) a plane that is fun to fly. Are other planes more fun? I don't know. I only flew a Rans S6 and a Sky Arrow. In comparison, they are easier to fly but IMHO, boring. I love the taildragger. I love the adverse yaw of my model 3 flaperons. Is it that difficult to keep the ball in the center by applying rudder in a turn? If ease is the word, then how would you like to fly a plane on auto-pilot, all the way from the hangar to the hangar? Boring, right? And now that I have a Jabiru in my Kitfox, I feel I can just fly, fly and have fun. I am sure I would also have fun in a Piper Cub with a Continental but ... I have a Kitfox and I am happy with it. Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:55:09 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe Clem Nichols wrote: > I've been disappointed with the viewability on my iPAQ 2210 PDA, however. Thanks for telling your experience, Clem. I am also at an age where my vision is getting limited and the size and visibility of a PDA is also my concern. As I said, I am currently only using PocketFMS as a flight planner at home. Not that I need that very much for local day trips but I intend to fly to Belgium this summer and the airspace between here and there is very difficult, many controlled zones and military zones in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium. Navigation and communication will be a challenge. I'll probably will be flying alone and chart reading will be difficult. I intend then to print my route from PocketFMS and have that on my kneeboard. What do you think? Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:14:34 AM PST US From: "Clem Nichols" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" Michel: That should work great. I really like the program, and only wish I could see it better on the iPAQ. The problem is not so much the size of the screen (the iPAQ has a larger screen than the Magellan 315) but the way it reflects light. I've no doubt it would work great at night, but I'm not set up for night flying. Clem Nichols Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > Clem Nichols wrote: >> I've been disappointed with the viewability on my iPAQ 2210 PDA, however. > > Thanks for telling your experience, Clem. I am also at an age where my > vision > is getting limited and the size and visibility of a PDA is also my > concern. As > I said, I am currently only using PocketFMS as a flight planner at home. > Not > that I need that very much for local day trips but I intend to fly to > Belgium > this summer and the airspace between here and there is very difficult, > many > controlled zones and military zones in Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and > Belgium. Navigation and communication will be a challenge. I'll probably > will > be flying alone and chart reading will be difficult. I intend then to > print my > route from PocketFMS and have that on my kneeboard. What do you think? > > Cheers, > Michel > > do not archive > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005 > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:53 AM PST US From: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net> Cliff, Some people just have a thing against experimental aircraft no matter what the make or model, they feel if it is not certified it is a toy or just plain junk. You will have to decide what fits your needs and taste and how you feel about the experimental class aircraft, as for being over priced, my experience has been that buying a used Kitfox is a better value than building a new one, you can generally find one for considerably less than the build cost. And you are right, they are a BLAST! to fly. Lloyd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clifford Dow" Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow > > > I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent > me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a > piece > of overpriced crap!!"" > he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday > and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made > by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a > transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want > to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical > system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to > me? > am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve > heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of > business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the > kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc. > I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in > anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the > price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox? > Thanks > cliff > > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > --------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:26:51 AM PST US From: "flier" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" Over the years I've also heard some disparaging comments from time to time about the Kitfox. There've been a lot of Kitfoxes torn up over the years due to poor pilot skills. There are also those that are ashamed to admit they'd be afraid to fly a taildragger. Then there are those that just won't be convinced a kitplane can be as safe as a certificated aircraft. I think it's a combination of all that and more. The thing I do know is that when I go to a fly-in, the people may glance at the certificated stuff but they're all gawking around my 'Fox and asking questions. Then I go out and make a low pass down the runway with the smoke on followed by a nose high roll-out at the end and really pull'em in : ) Regards, Ted -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clifford Dow Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a piece of overpriced crap!!"" he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to me? am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc. I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox? Thanks cliff DO NOT ARCHIVE --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:32:16 AM PST US From: "Cliff Olson" Subject: Kitfox-List: New to this forum --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cliff Olson" I've been reading this forum for some time and have finally decided to participate.This is a very good forum ,and I regret not jumping in sooner.I sold my Cessna 150 in June of 04 and bought a Kitfox IV 1050. On the very first couple of flights I discovered fuel running off the top of the left wing while on short final.I suspect it could be siphoning out of the vent tube.Looking in the archives I see a check valve has been used on some vent tubes.Sitting on the ground with full fuel there isn't any leaks.Does it soud like I'm on the right track?Cliff Olson ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:39:02 AM PST US From: "flier" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" Hey Clem, I've got a 4310 iPaq and picked up an hx2400 for my wife. I use Delorme Bluelogger bluetooth gps. I'm happy with both units. I run pFMS on mine from time to time but I use it all the time to run the iPaq NAV system in my car -- it rocks. Mounting the PDA in a location that's easily viewable makes a lot of difference. Personally though I don't think you can ever get the PDA to work as well as a handheld aviation gps in a flight environment. You're right in that the Kitfox is problematic with that skylight. I've found the PDAs work better in closed cabin type aircraft. -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clem Nichols Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" Michel, et al: I've been playing with the PocketFMS program for several months now. I've been disappointed with the viewability on my iPAQ 2210 PDA, however. Even though it has what I think they call a transreflective screen which is supposed to be easily seen in direct sunlight, I find it hard to see even on a bright, overcast day. This problem is, no doubt, compounded by the transparent canopy in the IV's cockpit. Moreover, the flight data numbers on the moving map page (altitude, speed over ground, heading, etc.) are quite small which adds to the problem. I might suspect my aging eyes, but I have no difficulty at all seeing the data on my little Magellan 315 GPS receiver. I have no reason to think that this problem would be any better on any of the other commercially available navigation programs such as Anywhere Map, Airgator, etc. If anyone in the group knows of a screen overlay or something of that nature that would help, I would appreciate hearing from them. I may try adding some type sunblocker to the canopy which would also make things a little cooler in the summer. I'm not certain that even that would make the PDA a useful navigational tool, however, because I've played with it in my car, and even there have to get the viewing angle just so in order to see what's on the screen. Clem Nichols ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" Subject: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > Hello Kitfoxers, > > I have been using a cool freeware program called PocketFMS to do my flight > plans. > > http://www.pocketfms.com/ > > Yes, it is mostly European but I am sure, with time, our American friends > will > find it interesting too. > It's free, you can download maps, navaids, metar, etc. You can plan your > flight > and, if you have a pocketPC, you can connect it to your GPS and used it as > a > moving map, in-flight. You can also scan your own maps and overlay them. > You > can also upload your scanning to their site so that other people can share > it. > That's what I have started doing for the Norwegian "VFR - Light Aircraft > Routes." > > At the time being, I only use it on my PC, at home, but I intend to buy a > PocketPC to have in my Kitfox. > > BTW, they call the route to the next waypoint: TT (true track) as it is > given > in true north compass notation. .... hummmm! Bloody Europeans!!!! :-) > > Cheers, > Michel > > do not archive > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005 > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:39:02 AM PST US From: "Werner Keiper" Subject: Kitfox-List: Gear question --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Werner Keiper" Hi Kitfox friends, Have a question regarding gear. I am bouilding a Kitfox 3 that has the standard gear to this time. I heared a lot about the Grove gear and it looks good. Does someone of you know if it is possible to use a Grove gear on a Kitfox 3 ? Werner Keiper Kitfox 3 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:50:06 AM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Kitfox-List: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe kurt schrader wrote: > But I should have said to try it with rubbing alcohol > instead of water. Alcohol is indeed a beautiful product, Kurt. A good antiseptic and detergent that - as you say - evaporates without leaving traces. Furthermore, it is a natural product that doesn't pollute our environment. Taken moderately, it has also good effects on our health. In the days of Columbus, Hispanic sailors were drinking two liters of wine, per day. The custom of giving British sailors a pint of Jamaican rum per week, only ended in 1970. I went flying today, Kurt. Not long because it started snowing, with reduced visibility. Alas, while better, my static port still gives about 5 MPH higher reading. I wonder why. Maybe it could be this, your opinion is requested: Not to make a hole in my fabric, I decided to put the port where it is recommended by Skystar, i.e. where I have an inspection cover. I made a tiny hole in the middle of the cover and added a fitting, inside, that attaches to the plastic pipe. From the inside, it goes up (to avoid rainwater) and there is some slack to the pipe so that I can remove the cover, pull the pipe some inches out, and disconnect the fitting, to remove completely the cover and inspect the inside of the fuselage aft end. Now, the cover is nearly flat, but not entirely. It is slightly curved to give it some strength. Could it be that the very slight curve accelerates the air passing by and create a lower pressure? Cheers, Michel do not archive ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:07:39 AM PST US From: "Dee Young" Subject: Kitfox-List: Fuel Leaking Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:07:04 -0700 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dee Young" Cliff When I first started flying my model II I had the same problem but also had fuel transferring from one wing to the other. Most of my problem was a result of not keeping the tail behind me (ball centered). In checking the fuel caps I found the vent was wide open on one while the other was almost blocked. I also installed a check valve on the highest point above the tank. Those things stopped the leaks for me. Hope this will help you Cliff Dee Young Model II N345DY Do not archive ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:48 AM PST US From: "Clifford Begnaud" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" A "Real" airplane? Hmm, lets see, a cub cruises at about 75 mph (and that's pushing it). A cub has the range of a riding lawn mower. A cub can't even be started while sitting in the plane (without assistance). A cub has a cargo area that will possibly accommodate a loaf of bread. That doesn't sound much like a real airplane to me. On the other hand, there are things about a cub that do indeed qualify it as a "real" airplane. For one it can only be maintained by an A&P, the annual inspection is going cost you big bucks, you can't install any of the thousands of wonderful aftermarket items available to the experimental market (props, avionics, electronic ignitions etc etc etc). Heck, you can't even install VG's on a cub without an stc. When you do need a replacement part, get ready to dig deep into your wallet... The Cub's flying characteristics have been dumbed down, like all certified aircraft, so that even the worst pilots have to try hard to kill themselves in it. And finally, the cub is likely to be older than you are. Yep that sounds like a real airplane to me... Now lets look at our kitfox (Model 5 with lycoming 0-235) It cruises comfortably at 130 mph, burning under 5.5 gph. It has a range of about 600 miles. It has dual electronic ignitions that start easier than any car I've ever owned (even after a cold night out). It has a cargo area that can hold 150 lbs of stuff, and it often does) I can do all the maintenance and the annual inspections cost me $100 because I didn't build the plane. I can install a glass cockpit, a new prop, VG's or anything else I want without asking anyone's permission. If I need a replacement part, I can buy it, or I can make it. How about flying characteristics... no comparison. The kitfox is nimble, quick and just downright fun. Unlike a cub, the kitfox goes where I tell it to go, no over or understeering, no sluggish response to my inputs. Now don't get me wrong, I like cubs, they are fun to fly, though they are not very comfortable for my 6 foot frame. A neighbor of mine has one and I occasionally go flying with him. It's a great little plane for relieving the pressures of the day with a dusk flight. In the 4 years he has owned it I don't think that the plane has gone 50 miles away from home. Going to breakfast in Greeley, CO, about 35 miles away, takes most of Saturday morning. Let's face it, if you want to go somewhere in your airplane, forget about a cub (with the possible exception of a supercub or PA 12 with a 160 or 180 hp engine). I've never heard such harsh words about a kitfox before. They are very nice airplanes with a great record (to my knowledge, there has never been an in-flight breakup of a kitfox). There is a solid demand for them on the used market, so you'll have no problem selling it when you want to. So, if all you want is a classic airplane for evening flights, a cub will fill the bill, but you want anything more, get a kitfox. Cliff Model 5, Lycoming 0-235 (our second kitfox) > > > I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent > me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a > piece > of overpriced crap!!"" > he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday > and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made > by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a > transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want > to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical > system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to > me? > am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve > heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of > business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the > kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc. > I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in > anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the > price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox? > Thanks > cliff > > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:46:55 AM PST US From: "Ben Baltrusaitis" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Gear question --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Ben Baltrusaitis" HI Werner, Check this link: http://www.groveaircraft.com/landing_gear.html#kitfox Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: Werner Keiper To: kitfox-list@matronics.com Sent: 03/13/2005 9:39 AM Subject: Kitfox-List: Gear question --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Werner Keiper" Hi Kitfox friends, Have a question regarding gear. I am bouilding a Kitfox 3 that has the standard gear to this time. I heared a lot about the Grove gear and it looks good. Does someone of you know if it is possible to use a Grove gear on a Kitfox 3 ? Werner Keiper Kitfox 3 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 03/11/05 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 08:26:44 AM PST US From: "jimshumaker" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" Hi Michel I believe you are on to part of the problem. The Kitfox static port is supposed to be flush with the fabric. But even with a perfect static port these cheap little airspeed indicators are not going to show the airspeed perfectly across the range. When I added my static port it brought my top speed from about 20 mph slow to about 3 mph slow. It was perfect at about 65 mph and it was slow again at 40 mph. But the range and conistancy were markedly improved and the altimeter did not jump when I opened the door. Jim Shumaker ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Verheughe" Subject: Kitfox-List: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > kurt schrader wrote: >> But I should have said to try it with rubbing alcohol >> instead of water. > > Alcohol is indeed a beautiful product, Kurt. A good antiseptic and > detergent > that - as you say - evaporates without leaving traces. Furthermore, it is > a > natural product that doesn't pollute our environment. Taken moderately, it > has > also good effects on our health. In the days of Columbus, Hispanic sailors > were > drinking two liters of wine, per day. The custom of giving British sailors > a > pint of Jamaican rum per week, only ended in 1970. > > I went flying today, Kurt. Not long because it started snowing, with > reduced > visibility. Alas, while better, my static port still gives about 5 MPH > higher > reading. I wonder why. Maybe it could be this, your opinion is requested: > Not to make a hole in my fabric, I decided to put the port where it is > recommended by Skystar, i.e. where I have an inspection cover. I made a > tiny > hole in the middle of the cover and added a fitting, inside, that attaches > to > the plastic pipe. From the inside, it goes up (to avoid rainwater) and > there is > some slack to the pipe so that I can remove the cover, pull the pipe some > inches out, and disconnect the fitting, to remove completely the cover and > inspect the inside of the fuselage aft end. > > Now, the cover is nearly flat, but not entirely. It is slightly curved to > give > it some strength. Could it be that the very slight curve accelerates the > air > passing by and create a lower pressure? > > Cheers, > Michel > > do not archive > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:28 AM PST US From: "jimshumaker" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: [off-topic] PocketFMS --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "jimshumaker" Hi Clem You do not say where your PDA is mounted. Mine is on a bracket extented through the panel just above the stick. I can change its angle and it is low enough to be in the shade most of the time. It is also most viewable with the backlight turned all the way up. I applied sunshade on the canopy (it made a huge difference in temperature and sun in the eyes). I used the automotive stuff that says do not use on plastic. I have had no problem with the material damaging the lexan, and anyways I change the canopy every few years due to hazing crazing and rock damage. I run the ipaq 3600 series and have no trouble viewig it in direct sunlight, but it is still better in the shade. I tried Michels free nav software but found that it does not compare to the Anywhere map or Mountain Scope. Both those softwares are easy to view and show all the airspaces, even TFR's that pop up daily, or hourly if you can download that often. The size of the displayed airspeed and the size of the touchscreen buttons are even adjustable on the Anywhere map. As I work with Anywhere map I discover that it has incredable capability. It even has glideslope approaches at airports and runways that do not have instrument approaches. Flying down the glideslope lands me exactly on the centerline at the correct touchdown point for that runway. Obviously you have to be careful setting up the approach on runways with mountains near the ends. Then Anywhere map comes up with upgrades that add features and make it even more useful (about once or twice a year). Jim Shumaker ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:49:32 AM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Cliff, Great post. It's a keeper! In my view the Kitfox is the modern incarnation of the Cub. It does many things better than the venerable Cub but still does the things that make the Cub great. I will take my Kitfox anytime. (Note to original poster Cliff. Did you expect any other message from this list?) Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clifford Begnaud Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clifford Begnaud" A "Real" airplane? Hmm, lets see, a cub cruises at about 75 mph (and that's pushing it). A cub has the range of a riding lawn mower. A cub can't even be started while sitting in the plane (without assistance). A cub has a cargo area that will possibly accommodate a loaf of bread. That doesn't sound much like a real airplane to me. On the other hand, there are things about a cub that do indeed qualify it as a "real" airplane. For one it can only be maintained by an A&P, the annual inspection is going cost you big bucks, you can't install any of the thousands of wonderful aftermarket items available to the experimental market (props, avionics, electronic ignitions etc etc etc). Heck, you can't even install VG's on a cub without an stc. When you do need a replacement part, get ready to dig deep into your wallet... The Cub's flying characteristics have been dumbed down, like all certified aircraft, so that even the worst pilots have to try hard to kill themselves in it. And finally, the cub is likely to be older than you are. Yep that sounds like a real airplane to me... Now lets look at our kitfox (Model 5 with lycoming 0-235) It cruises comfortably at 130 mph, burning under 5.5 gph. It has a range of about 600 miles. It has dual electronic ignitions that start easier than any car I've ever owned (even after a cold night out). It has a cargo area that can hold 150 lbs of stuff, and it often does) I can do all the maintenance and the annual inspections cost me $100 because I didn't build the plane. I can install a glass cockpit, a new prop, VG's or anything else I want without asking anyone's permission. If I need a replacement part, I can buy it, or I can make it. How about flying characteristics... no comparison. The kitfox is nimble, quick and just downright fun. Unlike a cub, the kitfox goes where I tell it to go, no over or understeering, no sluggish response to my inputs. Now don't get me wrong, I like cubs, they are fun to fly, though they are not very comfortable for my 6 foot frame. A neighbor of mine has one and I occasionally go flying with him. It's a great little plane for relieving the pressures of the day with a dusk flight. In the 4 years he has owned it I don't think that the plane has gone 50 miles away from home. Going to breakfast in Greeley, CO, about 35 miles away, takes most of Saturday morning. Let's face it, if you want to go somewhere in your airplane, forget about a cub (with the possible exception of a supercub or PA 12 with a 160 or 180 hp engine). I've never heard such harsh words about a kitfox before. They are very nice airplanes with a great record (to my knowledge, there has never been an in-flight breakup of a kitfox). There is a solid demand for them on the used market, so you'll have no problem selling it when you want to. So, if all you want is a classic airplane for evening flights, a cub will fill the bill, but you want anything more, get a kitfox. Cliff Model 5, Lycoming 0-235 (our second kitfox) > > > I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent > me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a > piece > of overpriced crap!!"" > he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday > and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made > by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a > transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want > to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical > system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to > me? > am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve > heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of > business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the > kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc. > I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in > anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the > price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox? > Thanks > cliff > > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 08:57:04 AM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: New to this forum --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Cliff, I am assuming that you have tanks in each wing like my 5. I find that if I don't keep the ball centered, the fuel will shift from one side to the other through the header tank. I haven't had any leakage, but I usually do not have much fuel on board either. If I don't watch the ball, I get used to flying with one or the other wings low and shifting fuel to that side. I am sure that if I had the tanks full, I would really have to watch it to keep from leaking from one side or the other. Check the level in the two tanks before you leave the ground and then immediately after you are back on the ground after flying for a bit to see if you have shifted the fuel to one side. Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cliff Olson Subject: Kitfox-List: New to this forum --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cliff Olson" I've been reading this forum for some time and have finally decided to participate.This is a very good forum ,and I regret not jumping in sooner.I sold my Cessna 150 in June of 04 and bought a Kitfox IV 1050. On the very first couple of flights I discovered fuel running off the top of the left wing while on short final.I suspect it could be siphoning out of the vent tube.Looking in the archives I see a check valve has been used on some vent tubes.Sitting on the ground with full fuel there isn't any leaks.Does it soud like I'm on the right track?Cliff Olson ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:33:45 AM PST US From: "Donna and Roger McConnell" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Donna and Roger McConnell" Cliff, I'm sure you've heard the expression 'Different Strokes for Different Folks' and that is exactly what the kit build market is all about. Don't listen too close to what other well meaning people have to say about any particular design aircraft. You have to decide for your self what your flying need is and then find a design that fits that need. The KitFox family of aircraft fits the need for slow recreational flying with adequate cross country capability. These aircraft were meant for sightseeing and the pure joy of flying. It's not a Van's RV or a Glasair but it was never intended to be. Those aircraft fill a different need for there owners as well as being more expensive. These are just my thoughts but I'll bet there are people on this list that will come close to agreeing with me. So chose wisely, chose a FOX. Good luck Roger Mac S7 (in final assembly) -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clifford Dow Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a piece of overpriced crap!!"" he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to me? am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc. I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox? Thanks cliff DO NOT ARCHIVE --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 10:30:39 AM PST US From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Is this legitimate? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" Hi Ron, I haven't seen this, but get lots of "undelivered mail" and a bit of spam. I delete all of these, as I would the one you got. I suggest you turn off the preview window (View/Layout in OE), and delete anything you don't recognize. You can view the "Properties" (right click menu on an email), click Details tab, click Message Source, expand the window, and then safely read the contents. Delete those you don't "like". It's also good to have OE move group list emails to unique folders as they are downloaded. You can do that for friends also. Then only strange stuff is left in the Inbox. I even have separate "* name" inboxes for my Sonex buddies! Cheers, bh > I get this notice every month and I am wondering if everyone gets it and > follows its directions....Or am I the only one to get this? Is this a way > for scammers to get info on us? > > Thanks, Ron N55KF ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 10:44:33 AM PST US From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" Hi Cliff, I owned a 2-stroked (Rotax 582) Kitfox IV-1200 for 8 years, put 800+ hours on it, took it on 5 Air Tours here in the NW USA, with visits to N. Calif., Idaho, Washington, and all over it's home state of Oregon. It's been to Cameron Air Park near Sacremento, Ca., routinely flew over the Cascade Mountains, and into Half Moon Bar down in the rugged Rogue River Valley. Everywhere I went, people gained appreciating for the Fox, and 2-stroke. I was welcomed every where I flew it. Our Oregon Antique and Classic Airplane Club greeted me with a hearty come join us. Besides all this, the fox is a blast to fly. On most of the Air Tours, I flew with Cubs, an L-3, and other similar types, but I got off the ground quicker, climbed faster, had greater range, and burned about the same fuel rate. So you can tell that guy he doesn't know what he's talking about! Cheers, bh Ex-582ed IV-1200, 800+ hrs Sonex Jab 3300ed N321SX, 103+ hrs > I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent > me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a > piece > of overpriced crap!!"" > he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday > and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made > by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a > transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want > to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical > system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to > me? > am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve > heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of > business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the > kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc. > I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in > anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the > price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox? > Thanks > cliff ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 10:47:03 AM PST US From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: New to this forum --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" Hi Cliff, The fuel tank cap may have unsealed holes around the lower lip of the cap that allow fuel to exit thru them. A bit of solder seals them. Many of us early Foxers had this leak. There were 4 holes as I recall. Cheers, bh > I've been reading this forum for some time and have finally decided to > participate.This is a very good forum ,and I regret not jumping in > sooner.I sold my Cessna 150 in June of 04 and bought a Kitfox IV 1050. On > the very first couple of flights I discovered fuel running off the top of > the left wing while on short final.I suspect it could be siphoning out of > the vent tube.Looking in the archives I see a check valve has been used on > some vent tubes.Sitting on the ground with full fuel there isn't any > leaks.Does it soud like I'm on the right track?Cliff Olson ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 11:14:12 AM PST US From: "Tom Tomlin" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin" Cliff it all comes down to what do you want versus what you need, influenced by what you can afford. The Kitfox is the aviation form of the good old Beetle...only Better! Okay some may take offense to that but check it out. It's basic and fun to fly. It's inexpensive to operate. It's relatively simple to work on. It'll go places most other aircraft can go to only once, if you know what I mean. It's reliable. It has very good range. It's an attractive enough design where you aren't skeered to be seen in one. It is versatile and can be adapted to pavement, dirt, tundra, snow, amphib, Etc... It is customizable with your particular needs in mind.... engine, speed options, wing length, VFR/IFR, fuel quantity, storage options, towability, Etc....... It can be painted more that just Cub Yellow. The list goes on and on. If you must have that Mercedes Benz because your friends all drive Porsches... (appologies to Janis Joplin) then there's plenty of those out there too. Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold? It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit. ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 11:26:08 AM PST US From: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cudnohufsky's" <7suds@chartermi.net> Ted, Smoke? Tell me more!! What are you running for an engine and smoke generation. Lloyd ----- Original Message ----- From: "flier" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "flier" > > Over the years I've also heard some disparaging comments from time to time > about the Kitfox. There've been a lot of Kitfoxes torn up over the years > due to poor pilot skills. There are also those that are ashamed to admit > they'd be afraid to fly a taildragger. Then there are those that just > won't > be convinced a kitplane can be as safe as a certificated aircraft. I > think > it's a combination of all that and more. > > The thing I do know is that when I go to a fly-in, the people may glance > at > the certificated stuff but they're all gawking around my 'Fox and asking > questions. Then I go out and make a low pass down the runway with the > smoke > on followed by a nose high roll-out at the end and really pull'em in > : > ) > > Regards, > > Ted > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Clifford Dow > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com > Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? > > > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow > > > I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent > me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a > piece > of overpriced crap!!"" > he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday > and > loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made by > Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a > transponder > & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want to have to > spin > the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical system - as the > Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to me? > am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve > heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of > business - > so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the kitfox can be > purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc. > I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in > anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the > price > way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox? > Thanks > cliff > > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > --------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 11:59:56 AM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan All, I know this has been discussed before, but I have some more questions. My compass swings badly when put in place at the top of the panel. It appears the frame was not demagnetized after welding. 1. What's the easiest way to demagnetize? 2. How much of the frame do I need to do? 3. I will remove all electronics, but do I need to remove my 582 to preclude demagnetizing the starter and PM alternator? 4. Any chance I can use one of those cute hand held surface demagnetizers? 5. Can I make a demagnetizer myself? If so, how? Thanks again, Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 12:06:57 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Kitfox-List: Not Much Room --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan All, This one's kind of funny. I'm 6' and don't seem to fit very well in my as-yet uncompleted Kitfox. 1. I don't think I'll have full stop left aileron with the doors on. 2. The throttle is pointed right at my right knee. (The builder made this gorgeous panel but put the throttle just left of center below the frame crossbar. To access the throttle my leg must be to one side or the other of it, meaning either I have no right aileron capability, or my passengers suffer with my knee. If I install both sticks, I don't see how I'll have aileron control.) I've thought of a vertical quadrant throttle, but don't yet have the patience to invent it. Does anyone else have fitting problems? Where are your throttles? Should I move/rebuild the panel? Can you fly with two sticks and a passenger? Thanks, Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 12:29:52 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Hi Cliff, I was asked the same thing once. Why not a "real airplane" You got a lot of good answers already, but I'd like to add a few points. Not a home run like Cliff B's, but a few points. :-) Before buying my Fox, I checked the accident records. At that time there were some 4000 kits sold. I think there are over 4500 now, but not sure. About 1/2 are completed and flying around the world. In fact, one of our list members has flown his around the world. When I looked, there were nearly 300 accidents in them, but only 4 fatailites in 2 accidents. Both those were from climb out stalls, probably from people showing off to their passanger. The planes were operating fine. There were no major failures of the KitFox structure. One broken trim motor, which has been replaced by a stronger unit in our kits, and a number of tube and fabric gear failures, were the only structural weaknesses I found. The Grove gear takes care of that. Since then, there have been rudder peddle failures and maybe a few problems with the flapperons that relate to the design. hter ehave been a few more fatalities too, but none aircraft induced that I know of. Some "improvements" are always available here on the list and these people do know how to make them better. Overall, the KitFox has a better record for keeping you alive than the Cub. It also doesn't have a flight control that jambs up the rear seater's butt in a crash like a Cub. I practiced in a Cub and a Champ before flying mine. My immediate impression was that, if my Fox flew this poorly, I made a mistake in building it. Then I got mine signed off and can state that mine flys "embarrassingly well". Think of a brand new Cessna 180 with quicker controls using a stick, and JATO takeoff. Sure it is slow at the top end, but just try and not smile while flying one. Mine has that "heavy-solid" feel while still being quick. This is no weak structured ultralight that you will have to oppologize for, or only fly under the cover of darkness. As for the financial weakness of SkyStar, they are surrounded by prospective new owners ready to jump in should the company go bankrupt. Ownership may change from time to time, but KitFox's won't die out in our lifetimes. Question for your friend. How much does a NEW Cub cost? One other good selling point is the old KitFox IV acrobatic airshow video. Let's see a Cub do that! I'll send you a copy if you can handle a major download. It's 10 mb long. Kurt S. S-5/NSI turbo --- Clifford Dow wrote: > > I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of > mine heard this and sent me the following comment: > ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a > piece of overpriced crap!!"" > he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? __________________________________ http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 12:34:13 PM PST US From: Michel Verheughe Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Not Much Room --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe Guy Buchanan wrote: > Can you fly with two sticks and a passenger? I do, Guy. It is my policy to inform my passenger (I made a leaflet about it) about a few things: 1) Keep the stick free, especially under landing and take-off. 2) Stop talking when ATC speaks. I could be for us. 3) Notice the pilot if the experience is unpleasant. Better land before one gets air-sick. I also make it a policy to explain, once in the air, the rudiment of stick control and - if wanted - even let any passenger the experience of flying the plane. My reasoning is this: Should I have a malaise, heart attack, faint, my passenger should get a fair chance to save his/her neck. I know, there has been cases of passengers panicking and then the stick shouldn't be there. But - and from my sailing experience - I know how to talk to the passenger as soon as we are in the air and feel if the person is relaxed or not. Anyway, a passenger's stick or not, it is a choice. I made mine but understand those who think differently. About the throttle, mine is in the centerline. I am only 5'4" and it is no problem. My knee meeting my passenger's knee when giving aileron to the right is normally not a problem either. At run-up, I test my controls to full deflection in all directions and the passenger quickly learns that it may come a pressure from his/her left side. Cheers, Michel ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 12:45:09 PM PST US From: "Jimmie Blackwell" Subject: Kitfox-List: Smart Single Instruments by MGL Avionics --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" I am considering getting the Attitude Reference System from MGL Avionics. Has anyone on the list used one and if so would like to have your assessment of this instrument? Jimmie ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 12:53:59 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Not Much Room --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Hi Guy, Yes it might be a good idea to change some things to fit you best. I put my throttle right on the middle, bottom of the panel. Both people can reach it equally and it is out of the way otherwise. Can you move your throttle? Also are your rudder peddles full fwd for leg room? The flight controls should not reach the door, even with your hand on the stick. Nor should you bust your nuckles on the panel when full fwd. You can adjust the sticks, but make sure you end up with the right flight control diflection. My sticks hit my legs when near full aft. I only get 4" of travel, 2" either side. This makes for a landing cross wind limitation. I need to move my stick angle fwd to nearer the panel to get better deflection. That adjustment is to come. It hasn't been a problem yet and I have a few better mods to do first. What about seat cushions? Smallest ones that you can fly with? You should be able to make some adjustments that fit you best. Hopefully not to muck up a fine panel. Kurt S. S-5 --- Guy Buchanan wrote: > All, > This one's kind of funny. I'm 6' and don't seem > to fit very well in my as-yet uncompleted Kitfox. > > 1. I don't think I'll have full stop left aileron > with the doors on. > > 2. The throttle is pointed right at my right knee. > (The builder made this gorgeous panel but put > the throttle just left of center below the frame > crossbar. To access the throttle my leg must be to > one side or the other of it, meaning either I have > no right aileron capability, or my passengers > suffer with my knee. If I install both sticks, I > don't see how I'll have aileron control.) I've > thought of a vertical quadrant throttle, but don't > yet have the patience to invent it. > > Does anyone else have fitting problems? > Where are your throttles? > Should I move/rebuild the panel? Can you fly with > two sticks and a passenger? > > Thanks, > > Guy Buchanan > K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. __________________________________ http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 12:59:51 PM PST US From: Marco Menezes Subject: Kitfox-List: more header tanks & fuel sensors --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes Hi folks. I pulled my header tank today to repair a slow leak and, since it's out, thought I'd install a low fuel sensor as many of you have recommended. My problem is I have the old style plastic header tank with 3 holes on top (R,L tanks and vent) and one on bottom (to engine). There are no "side" holes as others have described. As much as I'd like to support Skystar, I'd rather not purchase a new tank if this one can be retrofitted. So the questions are: 1) What are my chances of successfully drilling and tapping this plastic to take a 3/4" NPT bushing and produce a leak-free fit? 2) If it's feasible, how far from top of tank should hole for the sensor be? I'm using the Aircraft Spruce float type, p/n 6905-004. Thanks as always for your valuable advice. Marco Menezes KF 2 - 582 N99KX --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 01:30:54 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: more header tanks & fuel sensors --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader I have used JB Weld on metal tanks with good success, but don't know haw well it would stick to that plastic. I bet it will be a problem. There are some well sealed two sided fixtures that migh work, but are probably too big to get the inside part installed. The best idea I know of is to install a seperate small "tank" above your header just big enough for the switch. Plumb it into one of the tank lines. then all of your header fuel is reserve. I forgot who did that here on the list, but the pics may be on the Sportflight site. Ah, yes. It was John King under add ons/mods. Try this as a great idea. http://www.sportflight.com/cgi-bin/uploader.pl?action=view&epoch=1035256822 Kurt S. --- Marco Menezes wrote: > > Hi folks. I pulled my header tank today to repair a > slow leak and, since it's out, thought I'd install a > low fuel sensor as many of you have recommended. > > My problem is I have the old style plastic header > tank with 3 holes on top (R,L tanks and vent) and > one on bottom (to engine). There are no "side" holes > as others have described. As much as I'd like to > support Skystar, I'd rather not purchase a new tank > if this one can be retrofitted. > > So the questions are: 1) What are my chances of > successfully drilling and tapping this plastic to > take a 3/4" NPT bushing and produce a leak-free fit? > 2) If it's feasible, how far from top of tank should > hole for the sensor be? I'm using the Aircraft > Spruce float type, p/n 6905-004. > > Thanks as always for your valuable advice. > > Marco Menezes > KF 2 - 582 N99KX __________________________________ http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 02:15:22 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Florida Trip --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" I'm flying northbound from FL to MI. Let me understand this. With the fronts moving generally from west to east, are you saying to thread the needle just behind the high? I would have thought it best to slip in just in front of the high. What's your thinking on this Kurt? Deke > Keep the High pressure areas to your right and the > Lows to your left. Arrive a day ahead of the low and > you should get good winds and maybe good WX. > > Now if you can just have what you want when you want > it.... :-) > > Kurt S. > > Do not archive > > --- Fox5flyer wrote: > ....... > > I'm planning fuel stops every three > > hours, but don't know where those stops will be > > until I find out what the winds will be doing. > > A 20 mph tailwind would get me all the way home in a > > day! Not much chance of that though. > > Deke > > > __________________________________ > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ > > ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 02:15:22 PM PST US From: "Jim Hakes" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Hakes" My daughter took the plane for a few weeks and the battery needed a jump. My Fox's compass was also out of whack because of a line boy who did a poor job of jumping the battery. First I tried to correct it by hooking up jumper cables and shorting them on the frame. All this did was to reverse the compass so instead of always reading north it always read south. I then borrowed a degouser from a TV repairman and used it. I started at the wind screen and made circles as I moved it away. It worked. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Buchanan" Subject: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan > > All, > I know this has been discussed before, but I have some more > questions. My compass swings badly when put in place at the top of the > panel. It appears the frame was not demagnetized after welding. > > 1. What's the easiest way to demagnetize? > > 2. How much of the frame do I need to do? > > 3. I will remove all electronics, but do I need to remove my 582 to > preclude demagnetizing the starter and PM alternator? > > 4. Any chance I can use one of those cute hand held surface demagnetizers? > > 5. Can I make a demagnetizer myself? If so, how? > > Thanks again, > > Guy Buchanan > K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. > > ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 03:09:40 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Florida Trip From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen > Torgeir, > Nothing to it. It's like going around the pattern 800 times. > > Do Not Archive > Don Smythe > Classic IV w/ 582 > Ha - Ha Don, I liked this one... I see the ironic you put in here... :) Well, take this one-. In the pattern you'll always get paid back (?), but enroute you might get trapped by strong head wing (hmm) -all the way. -But if you'll follow Kurts advice, it can go much faster - and feels you'd only gone "half" the way. He he.. How about that? Torgeir. > > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 03:10:08 PM PST US From: Steve Zakreski Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Not Much Room --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski Guy I'm not very tall, but I did find the stick interfered with my knees a bit. More important, I did not like the close clearance with the underside of the instrument panel. So I cut a few inches off the bottom of the control stick to lower it. Works great! SteveZ Calgary -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan Subject: Kitfox-List: Not Much Room --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan All, This one's kind of funny. I'm 6' and don't seem to fit very well in my as-yet uncompleted Kitfox. 1. I don't think I'll have full stop left aileron with the doors on. 2. The throttle is pointed right at my right knee. (The builder made this gorgeous panel but put the throttle just left of center below the frame crossbar. To access the throttle my leg must be to one side or the other of it, meaning either I have no right aileron capability, or my passengers suffer with my knee. If I install both sticks, I don't see how I'll have aileron control.) I've thought of a vertical quadrant throttle, but don't yet have the patience to invent it. Does anyone else have fitting problems? Where are your throttles? Should I move/rebuild the panel? Can you fly with two sticks and a passenger? Thanks, Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 03:27:50 PM PST US From: "Brian Rodgers" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Brian Rodgers" Howdy Cliff, Well, they say that you can pick your friends (and airplanes?), but not your relatives.... Okay.... I bought my Kitfox IV Speedster last October and have about 40 hours on it. The builder did a fine job on it and I am fortunate to have it now. I've put almost 40 hours on it. It has flown to Alaska and Nova Scotia from Texas, although I've only managed to get it 150 miles from home so far. As you are also buying a 'pre-owned' aircraft, as with any aircraft purchase, do a careful review. Maybe even get a good A&P to look at it for you. The plane is a lot more sturdy that it may look. Yes, the Grove gear is good and I've been surprised at how much it can flex (you know, the occasional bad landing !). As it is fairly light, it does get tossed about a bit in turbulence, but that should be expected of a lightly loaded wing. I have exactly one Cub flight on my logbook. Yes, it was fun, but the cockpit was even more cramped (I'm 6'2" and 210 lbs) than the 'fox ! Actually, looking back, I'd say that the 'fox is easier to land than the Cub (maybe more practice?). As noted previously, the Kitfox (mine has the 912 and a CAP140 in-flight adjustable pitch prop) is faster than the Cub. As for range, it holds 26 gallons and burns about 3.5-4 gph in cruise @ 90 - 100 mph. When we first got it, my partner and I were somewhat annoyed that we couldn't put gas into it after flying as it had hardly used any ! Ha ! Now that's a good thing ! As also noted previously, the 'fox does get attention when you fly in somewhere. I like that as I am quite proud to discuss this wonderful, little aeroplane and look forward to sharing it. I had previous tailwheel time in the Cub and about 20 hours or so in Citabrias. The main difference on landing is that the 'fox has offset, rather than centerline, seating, so a slight "landing picture" adjustment is needed. Probably would be the same as for 180 / 185. I have not found it to be too difficult to land or take-off. Yes, it is a tailwheel type, so the general rules apply compared to a tricycle gear. I like that challenge. As you might guess from this list, there are also LOTS of happy Kitfox owners / pilots out there. Make NEW (open-minded?) friends; get the 'fox ! Happy flying, Brian Rodgers Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clifford Dow" Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Clifford Dow > > > I'm really close to buying a kitfox - a friend of mine heard this and sent me the following comment: ""That's because it isn't a REAL airplane,it's a piece > of overpriced crap!!"" > he thinks I should buy an old Cub instead? I flew in a kitfox yesterday and loved it - the frame was all powder coated, the landing gear was made by Grove - extremely heavy duty, the one i'm looking to buy has a transponder & comm, lights, the old cubs have none of that? I don't want to have to spin the prop to get my airplane going -I want an electrical system - as the Kitfoxes have. they sure look like "REAL" airplanes to me? > am i missing something here? Where does this hostility come from? I"'ve heard Kitfox is very financially troubled - if Kitfox goes out of business - so what - isn't it true that just about everything on the kitfox can be purchased somewhere else - like wheel bearings, etc. > I'd say the 40 & 50 year old cubs are overpriced! I have zero interest in anything certified that's fabric covered - that just seems to run the price way up. What else is there out there that is similar to a Kitfox? > Thanks > cliff > > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > --------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 03:29:06 PM PST US From: Aerobatics@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? VIDEO? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Aerobatics@aol.com Would LOVE to see.... Dave Patrick KF 2 582 ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 03:41:29 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Capacitor From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen Hi there, I'll think this is as good as it can be.. :) The only thing is the "mysteries" about the 0.5 VDC., I can explain a little about. You'll know, in "most" devices there is a polarity protection, a diode in series with the input line for the particular device. All those devices will be feed by this large capacitor (22 000 mmF - Skystars standard) for a little moment, as- when shutting off the master switch. For a few millisecond (well - maybe seconds), the capacitor will be discharged - all the way down to approx. 0.5 VDC. This is true, as there will be approx. 0.6 VDC across a silicone diode. I'll think most of the Western type of instruments is fitted with such a diode, this because of the type of "generator system" actually PMG's that Rotax uses in their engines.. Also absolutely agree with Kurt, keep the capacitor in there. As you have a circuit breaker connected in series with it, it's a safe installation. Torgeir. On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:06:50 -0800 (PST), kurt schrader wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > > > Hi Jareds, > > Torgier can check me on this.... > > Jareds, your description is much more helpful now. > > First, if you can make due without it and the noise > isn't bad, you can take it out. Be sure to test > against recieving a weak station while in flight > first. That should be where you encounter the most > noise and is a good test. If the breaker is one you > can push/pull easily, this is an easy test. Find some > ATIS station 100 miles or so away and try it with the > Cap on and off. Then it is a case of how much noise > you can deal with. > > Second, if it is on the insolated/equipment side of > the solenoid with the solinoid off and not not the > battery side, you shouldn't have such a big problem > with a little leakage. It can't run the battery down > with the master off. Then it can retain some voltage > like a battery and give you no real problems. With > the breaker in there, you are protected, so if you > need it for noise reduction and keep it, you are OK > too. > > If the leakage got very big it would work your > alternator hard like a big load though. If you have > an amp meter, you can see the difference when you pull > the Cap breaker with the power on. If you can't see > the amps change, you are OK. > > Your radio equipment may have caps in them to that > give a low voltage reading when switched on, but the > master is off. However, you said that the volts went > to zero when you disconnected this cap, so this Cap > seems to be the source. > > It doesn't seem you have a great risk with this wiring > to the Cap as long as you check the amps from time to > time by looking for a drop when you pull the breaker. > No significant change in amps = no big problem. > > If the volts with it off bothers you, a high ohm > resistor can be wired across the Cap leads to bleed it > off when the power is off. Any high ohm resister of > say 1/4 amp and 10K (10,000) ohms or higher should do > fine. It should bleed the cap down to zero after > shutdown without being a load by itself. > > What do you think Torgier? > > Kurt S. > > --- jareds wrote: > >> torgeir and kurt >> >> Vaguely i remember an explanation like that before >> but not as descriptive. >> Yes by secondary I mean it is after the solenoid >> actuated by inst panel master on the side where >> all my instraments are. Cap runs through a breaker >> and has one side connected to ground and the >> other side to the posotive strip. That is where the >> .5 volts resides and disappears when i disconnect >> cap. >> >> With my resistor plugs and everything grounded >> seperately i have little noise in my microair. >> Is the consensus that it needs to be on the >> equipment side with the instraments? >> I do have 5 amp breaker seperating in case it shorts >> out but .5volts seems like alot and wasnt sure if >> i even needed the dumb thing? > > > __________________________________ > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ > > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 03:48:09 PM PST US From: kurt schrader Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Florida Trip --> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader Hey Deke, I was only talking about winds here. Of course you need to consider the other factors too. Winds around a high in our hemisphere go clockwise, and around lows counter-clockwise. Highs screw down/in, lows unscrew up... So if you have a high to your right and a low to your left, the winds should be out of the south. Could be SE or S to SW blowing from high to low. How close they are together, their strength, and which you are flying closest to determines the winds you see. Highs are colder heavy air that pushes out and down. Harder to get convective activity when that happens, but it does get bumpy 'cus the sun is out. :-) Lows are from warm light air that sucks inward and up. A setup for convective activity, especially when the jetstream is pulling air out the top of a low. If you fly to the right, front of a high, it should be pretty clear, but winds will be moe in your face. The closer you are in front of the low, the more southerly, but then there is the wx to deal with. So generally speaking, when going north, takeoff just behind the high and get there before the lead wx in front of the low reaches your destination. If you need to leave earlier into the wind to beat the weather, do it. You can think of Norhtern hemishpere winds around highs and lows just like turning a bolt or screw. High pressure to screw down and in. Low pressure to screw up and out. Plan for the right side of a low and the left side of a high, no matter which direction you fly, to get favorable winds. Then adjust your plans for the weather. Kurt S. --- Fox5flyer wrote: > > I'm flying northbound from FL to MI. Let me > understand this. With the fronts moving generally > from west to east, are you saying to thread the > needle just behind the high? I would have thought > it best to slip in just in front of the high. > What's your thinking on this > Kurt? > Deke > > > Keep the High pressure areas to your right and the > > Lows to your left. Arrive a day ahead of the low > and you should get good winds and maybe good WX. > > > > Now if you can just have what you want when you > want it.... :-) > > > > Kurt S. > > > > Do not archive __________________________________ http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 04:07:33 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Alcohol and static port. WAS: Capacitor From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen Hi Michel, Maybe it's time to check your airspeed indicator, as I said; those indicators is not just a high accurate indicators, get it checked soon. You've all the remedies you'll need at home!! And your test will be as accurate as any high performance "Kollsman" device. Hurry up man.. :) Torgeir. On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:41:55 +0100, Michel Verheughe wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe > > kurt schrader wrote: >> But I should have said to try it with rubbing alcohol >> instead of water. > > Alcohol is indeed a beautiful product, Kurt. A good antiseptic and > detergent > that - as you say - evaporates without leaving traces. Furthermore, it > is a > natural product that doesn't pollute our environment. Taken moderately, > it has > also good effects on our health. In the days of Columbus, Hispanic > sailors were > drinking two liters of wine, per day. The custom of giving British > sailors a > pint of Jamaican rum per week, only ended in 1970. > > I went flying today, Kurt. Not long because it started snowing, with > reduced > visibility. Alas, while better, my static port still gives about 5 MPH > higher > reading. I wonder why. Maybe it could be this, your opinion is requested: > Not to make a hole in my fabric, I decided to put the port where it is > recommended by Skystar, i.e. where I have an inspection cover. I made a > tiny > hole in the middle of the cover and added a fitting, inside, that > attaches to > the plastic pipe. From the inside, it goes up (to avoid rainwater) and > there is > some slack to the pipe so that I can remove the cover, pull the pipe some > inches out, and disconnect the fitting, to remove completely the cover > and > inspect the inside of the fuselage aft end. > > Now, the cover is nearly flat, but not entirely. It is slightly curved > to give > it some strength. Could it be that the very slight curve accelerates the > air > passing by and create a lower pressure? > > Cheers, > Michel > > do not archive > > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 04:30:37 PM PST US From: AlbertaIV@aol.com Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: more header tanks & fuel sensors --> Kitfox-List message posted by: AlbertaIV@aol.com In a message dated 3/13/2005 4:00:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, msm_9949@yahoo.com writes: So the questions are: 1) What are my chances of successfully drilling and tapping this plastic to take a 3/4" NPT bushing and produce a leak-free fit? 2) If it's feasible, how far from top of tank should hole for the sensor be? I'm using the Aircraft Spruce float type, p/n 6905-004. Thanks as always for your valuable advice. Marco, Based on past reports of the older style header tanks, I'd think about getting a new header. You can purchase one or have one made from Alum. That plastic is "thin" and there is nothing to hold threads You might just end up with more leaks than you can handle. My side hole (newer style 95) is about 2" down from the top (memory). I use that hole as a port to a dump valve on the A./C bottom. Don Smythe Classic IV w/ 582 ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 04:31:10 PM PST US From: "Fox5flyer" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Florida Trip --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" That was the best and most useful "in a nutshell" bit of weather trivia I've read yet. Makes easy sense, even for this partially fried brain to handle. Now, another question. What do you (or others) use for easy to interpret online weather sources to enable you to grab this good info? Thanks Kurt. Good stuff. Deke > Hey Deke, > I was only talking about winds here. Of course you > need to consider the other factors too. Winds around > a high in our hemisphere go clockwise, and around lows > counter-clockwise. Highs screw down/in, lows unscrew > up... > > So if you have a high to your right and a low to your > left, the winds should be out of the south. Could be > SE or S to SW blowing from high to low. How close > they are together, their strength, and which you are > flying closest to determines the winds you see. > > Highs are colder heavy air that pushes out and down. > Harder to get convective activity when that happens, > but it does get bumpy 'cus the sun is out. :-) > > Lows are from warm light air that sucks inward and up. > A setup for convective activity, especially when the > jetstream is pulling air out the top of a low. > > If you fly to the right, front of a high, it should be > pretty clear, but winds will be moe in your face. The > closer you are in front of the low, the more > southerly, but then there is the wx to deal with. > > So generally speaking, when going north, takeoff just > behind the high and get there before the lead wx in > front of the low reaches your destination. If you > need to leave earlier into the wind to beat the > weather, do it. > > You can think of Norhtern hemishpere winds around > highs and lows just like turning a bolt or screw. > High pressure to screw down and in. Low pressure to > screw up and out. Plan for the right side of a low > and the left side of a high, no matter which direction > you fly, to get favorable winds. Then adjust your > plans for the weather. > > Kurt S. > > --- Fox5flyer wrote: > > > > I'm flying northbound from FL to MI. Let me > > understand this. With the fronts moving generally > > from west to east, are you saying to thread the > > needle just behind the high? I would have thought > > it best to slip in just in front of the high. > > What's your thinking on this > > Kurt? > > Deke > > > > > Keep the High pressure areas to your right and the > > > Lows to your left. Arrive a day ahead of the low > > and you should get good winds and maybe good WX. > > > > > > Now if you can just have what you want when you > > want it.... :-) > > > > > > Kurt S. > > > > > > Do not archive > > > __________________________________ > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ > > ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 05:08:44 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame - Part one. From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen Hi Guy, Couple of years ago I wrote two "small" notes about such problem, never published on this list I'll think. Here it is: Hi Out there! Do you have problem with your "stand by compass" ? Read completely wrong courses - large course offset or stuck at one heading? The correction does not work very well, nothing seems to work the way it should. Finally, removing the compass from plane- outside the compass work OK. All this can be a symptom of residual "magnetism" in the framework-, this tend to happened due to the TIG welding process. As all electrical current has its accompanying magnetic field around the feeder, it's quite normal that any Ferro magnetic material can be magnetized during the welding process. The welding object act as an electrical feeder, in our case the 4130 steel (which is a Ferro magnetic material). Don't know that if the frame has been defluxed after the welding process at factory, but probably not. So one of the first thing to do with the frame is to deflux it, just to remove any magnetic remains. At least this procedure should be carried out before the instrument installation. OK, whats the first step? -- It's to find out if your frame have any magnetic remains. I am using a very simple method for this detection, in fact Im using a sewing needle (make sure that the one you are using is made of a Ferro magnetic material). This can be checked by using a magnet on one of the needles you have, if it's stick to the magnet - this kind of needles is OK to use. Put this test needle away from the others to avoid that those new become magnetic. It's important that your test needle is absolutely free from rest magnetic. The test needle shall not stick with other needles. Then add some thread (say two feet), but not into the eye end - tie the thread in the middle of the needle, so that the needle will hang in horizontal position. By using this method its easier to see any sticking due to magnetic. Now you are ready to check your frame. The first place to look at is,: at all the tubes near your compass installation. The needle will stick wherever there is any magnetic remains. Sure you must hold the thread at least a feet from the free hanging needle, by moving the needle against the frame, you will easily see if the needle stick. I have used this method for many years, and always work fine. As we might find some magnetic spots around, we need a method to remove the magnetism. Then- lets talk about what to do next. The tool we need now is a defluxing device. So, how does this device work? Hmm, it's quite simple, suppose that you have a winded up coil, connect this coil to a DC source, this setup will create a magnetic field around the coil. The strongest "magnetic field density" will occur in the middle of the coil, and we will have one north pole and one south pole. If we put a Ferro magnetic material into the middle of this coil, it will be magnetized. Well, this is a device to create a stable magnetic field. By just adding AC (alternate current) instead of DC (direct current), to this same coil, we will have something different, yes we will have a magnetic field, but now a fluctuating magnetic field, i.e. the magnetic polarity will change with the alternate current. In US the main have 110 VAC at 60 Hz, most other countries have 220 VAC at 50 Hz. The magnetic field polarity will now change very rapid, in fact as fast as the main frequency. If we now put a Ferro magnetic object into the coil, we know that this object will be force magnetized with alternating magnetic field. If we now start moving - slowly our object out from this coil, what happen then? Well, the field will decrease by distance, but the object is still being magnetized, but by a gradually reducing field (as you are moving the object away). In this way, the residual magnetic will become lower and lower until all is gone. This is basically how it's done, except that we are moving the coil instead of the object (the fox is a bit heavy). Where can I get such a device? ( I'll expect such a question.) Any radio and television repair shop (with self respect) should normally have such a devices in their hand. They normally have one small defluxing device to be used for the recording/playback head on tape recorders - and also a big device meant for defluxing CRT frames (defluxing frames in color televisions). This latter device is the most proper one for our steel frame alone, the small one is better to be used when you don't like to spread a heavy magnetic field around, such strong magnetic field device can ruin an instrument faster than you can say d.... Here is a picture of the big device: http://kitfox.net/images/L_deflux.jpg And here is the small defluxing device: http://kitfox.net/images/S_deflux.jpg The very important lesson to learn here is.: Remove your sensitive instruments, if you need to use a strong defluxing device. And please- don't defluxe your compass, you will be surprised of the result. Also if you are one of those using the screw driver with a magnetic bit holder, -- throw this away (well I'll can accept it as a part of your cars tool box). Next time I'll like to talk about the electrical wiring vs. your compass installation. Regards from Torgeir. ---------------------------------------------- On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:55:19 -0800, Guy Buchanan wrote: > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan > > All, > I know this has been discussed before, but I have some more > questions. My compass swings badly when put in place at the top of the > panel. It appears the frame was not demagnetized after welding. > > 1. What's the easiest way to demagnetize? > > 2. How much of the frame do I need to do? > > 3. I will remove all electronics, but do I need to remove my 582 to > preclude demagnetizing the starter and PM alternator? > > 4. Any chance I can use one of those cute hand held surface > demagnetizers? > > 5. Can I make a demagnetizer myself? If so, how? > > Thanks again, > > Guy Buchanan > K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. > > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 05:12:53 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame - Part two. From: Torgeir Mortensen --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen Here is the second one. Torgeir. -------------------------------- Compass installation in Kitfoxes. Second report. In the first article I talked about detecting and removing magnetic remains. There is some more to add, when I warn you about how a strong magnetic field can ruin your instruments, the intention is to warn you that most of our instruments are calibrated against a standard and "can" give vital information. The instrument can be damaged, or the calibration can be ruined, the latter is even worse! But this would not happen with those small defluxers-, when they are locally used on screws, tube point etc. The small ones normally has an internal core, made up by a number of sheet metal- added close together (as in transformers). At the end, there is a nose where the magnetic field is very concentrated, this is the part of the defluxer (degausser) to be moved slowly over the magnetic object to be defluxed. Another importance note.: Don't turn a defluxer on or off when it's positioned near the object you like to deflux, such an operation can magnetize your object again. -- So, when instruments is installed- don't use the BIG degausser. - The electrical wiring and the compass. When installing / finding a proper place to put your magnetic compass, the following might be taken into consideration. As we recover that all electrical wiring with electrical flow (current) will have an accompanying proportional magnetic field. In other word, it's quite difficult to predict the effect of wiring installation nearby a magnetic compass. The first step is to install the compass in a physical center position, to avoid having unsymmetrical errors due to nearby Ferro magnetic material. If this can be obtained, the errors will be easy to correct. Next, this position is to be as far as practical from your main electrical loom. This will decrees the errors due to "electrical configurations". By this I mean, the various combination of equipment on - off relationship. All kind of electrical usage combination can make your compass read different at same AC (aircraft) heading. Can you imaging having one compass course for heater on, another for heater and position light together- and so on. In fact, we can (quite often) issue a correction table with one correction for day, and one for night (they are both day/night at the same table). If the home lesson is done quite well, no equipment will influence very much on the stand by compass, but I'll tell you this is very difficult to obtain. A number of parameter is working against us as you see-, another one is the latitude. As we approach the north or the south, the resultant magnetic field become more vertical, this also keep things worse for us. As a general role we say that the compass is to be corrected by every degree, when above 70 deg. south or north (meaning for a plane with home base in such an area). There is various rules for this, but you better check out the your authorities. How can this happen you may ask? Sure your frame become different for a surrounding magnetic field with some higher vertical vector. (You know the vector angle at the magnetic pole?) The first thing you'll see is that your compass become very slow, seem to have no reaction, hanging etc., even when start turning. Under such condition, it's even more important to have an electrical installation who have lo influence to your compass. So, saying this give you the most ideal position for our compass installation, on the center frame in the middle of the cockpit window. This is the position giving less trouble, well proven - I'll tell you-. However, sometime we have to compromise, and here common sense make the decision. Well, where do I put my main loom (electrical main bundle)? There is no standard answer to this question, but basically as far from your compass as possible. In our case thats mean in the lower part of the instrument panel, as we here need vertical separation. So, thats mean a low position for the power carrying cables/wires and fuses,- this is what we see on the certified equivalents.. If you are of those having installed the internal light wires to the compass, here is something interesting. From the compass there is two wires, the positive and the ground (negative) wire. Those two wires are also twisted, dont attempt to untwist or to cut the ground wire and ground it in the compass attachement screw(s). The meaning with this twisted wire, is to have the magnetic field in the plus and minus wire to work against each other, more or less canceling (minimize) each others magnetic field, clever isn't it? Now to the real power wires, the battery cable(s) and the ground. As you now know that any electrical current lead to a magnetic field-, there is more lessons to learn. "The issue of repositioning the main battery to obtain a proper CG range". I am not sure how people have solved the ground path, but this can "sometimes" cause a very erratic compass. If you assume that most of the main current-, to - from the battery, by some reason take the path via the frame tube you have attached your compass to. Well, this is worst case- and I am not saying this will happen, but there is a risk. So such an installation from time to time require a separate ground feeder to avoid such path. From a "compass installations" point of view, the battery should be in the front with main ground to a single point, thus keep all the electrical as close as possible to reduce magnetic field effect. However, different interest count here, for instance, the battery is better placed aft of the seats or "cargo room"-, with a proper master relay, just for safety - fire risk in case of a forced landing. Sure a lot more can be said, but basically-, if you put attention to the above You'll probably be safe with your compass installation. One last word here, have you seen those black (anodized) screws used to attach the instruments? Yes, those screws are made of brass-, non magnetic material - now you should know why. The stainless steel screws are also non magnetic. Now you know why we need a deviation card for the magnetic compass. Maybe I'll say something about how to calibrate (make a compass swing) the magnetic compass and the errors we have to fight. Torgeir. ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 05:14:43 PM PST US From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" Hi Tom, Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed. A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs. bh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Tomlin" > Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold? > It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit. ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 05:55:54 PM PST US From: Fred Shiple Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Florida Trip --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Fred Shiple try: duats.com fred > Now, another question. What do you (or others) use > for easy to interpret > online weather sources to enable you to grab this > good info? ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 06:21:09 PM PST US From: "Tom Tomlin" Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin" Thanks Bruce...that's a very impressive stat, considering other(most) kit manufacturers don't reach 10% of that. I hope to add another one to the completions column within the next month or so. 99.9% completed and still with much left to do. I wonder what the record is for the longest kitfox build time? Tom Tomlin IV Speedster Jab 3300 do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" > > Hi Tom, > Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed. > A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs. > bh > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Tomlin" > >> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold? >> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit. > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 06:24:32 PM PST US From: "Cliff Olson" Subject: Kitfox-List: Why I like my Kitfox --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Cliff Olson" I like to trailer my Fox home in the off season to do all my tinkering.Roll it in my steel building,turn the lights,muisic,and heat on and go to work.Couldn't seem to get the wings folded on my Cessna (have you ever tried to pull the wings on a cessna?)When some of my certified friends learned of my switch to a Kitfox they said when do I get a ride.There are so many aircraft to choose from it gets hard to make a final choice.Ninety percent of my flying is solo,off of short grass strips,and less than 250 miles from home.I grew up in the family auto salvage bussiness and I'm used to fixing any and everything.This Kitfox is new to me but it feels right,and I have a feeling its gonna be mine for quite a long time.I loved my cessna and if I could have gotten a STC to fold the wings I would still own it.Just my two cents in responce to {why do some hate the Fox}Please don't archive.Cliff ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 06:38:28 PM PST US From: Marco Menezes Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: longest build time --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes Tom: My Model 2 (s/n 374) was started by previous owner in 1989. She'll fly this spring. That has to be close to the world's record I would think. Marco Menezes N99KX do not archive Tom Tomlin wrote: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin" Thanks Bruce...that's a very impressive stat, considering other(most) kit manufacturers don't reach 10% of that. I hope to add another one to the completions column within the next month or so. 99.9% completed and still with much left to do. I wonder what the record is for the longest kitfox build time? Tom Tomlin IV Speedster Jab 3300 do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Harrington" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" > > Hi Tom, > Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed. > A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs. > bh > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Tomlin" > >> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold? >> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit. > > > > > > --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 52 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:56 PM PST US From: "Clem Nichols" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Clem Nichols" Hey, Tom: A Jabiru 3300 in a Model IV. Sounds exciting. Keep us posted. Clem Nichols Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Tomlin" Subject: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin" > > Thanks Bruce...that's a very impressive stat, considering other(most) > kit manufacturers don't reach 10% of that. > I hope to add another one to the completions column within the next month > or so. > 99.9% completed and still with much left to do. > I wonder what the record is for the longest kitfox build time? > > Tom Tomlin > IV Speedster > Jab 3300 > > do not archive > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bruce Harrington" > To: > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? > > >> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" >> >> Hi Tom, >> Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed. >> A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs. >> bh >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tom Tomlin" >> >>> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold? >>> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005 > > ________________________________ Message 53 ____________________________________ Time: 08:01:47 PM PST US From: "Joel Mapes" Subject: Kitfox-List: Covering --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Joel Mapes" Hi, I'm covering my model 5 and am wondering about the 6 tabs on the bottom of the fuselage. They are in two lines of three each under the cockpit an run for / aft. Should the fabric be slit to allow these tabs to protrude thru the fabric? I've got the landing gear and lift strut attachments taken care of. Thanks, Joel Model 5 912 GTA CS prop Aerocomp amphibs (this summer!) Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ ________________________________ Message 54 ____________________________________ Time: 08:44:52 PM PST US From: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Covering --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Randy Daughenbaugh" Joel, Yup. They get reinforced when you put the tapes along frame members. Cut holes in the tapes too. Randy . -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joel Mapes Subject: Kitfox-List: Covering --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Joel Mapes" Hi, I'm covering my model 5 and am wondering about the 6 tabs on the bottom of the fuselage. They are in two lines of three each under the cockpit an run for / aft. Should the fabric be slit to allow these tabs to protrude thru the fabric? I've got the landing gear and lift strut attachments taken care of. Thanks, Joel Model 5 912 GTA CS prop Aerocomp amphibs (this summer!) Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ ________________________________ Message 55 ____________________________________ Time: 08:50:51 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Not Much Room --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan At 12:53 PM 3/13/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader > >Hi Guy, > ... >Can you move your >throttle? You know how it is. Yes and no. Yes I can but it won't be easy. >Also are your rudder peddles full fwd for leg room? That depends. They don't quite hit the firewall with about 30 degrees of rudder deflection. >The flight controls should not reach the door, even >with your hand on the stick. Nor should you bust your >nuckles on the panel when full fwd. You can adjust >the sticks, but make sure you end up with the right >flight control diflection. The stick doesn't hit the door, but it does hit my knee, which would then hit the door, if I had one. The only way to avoid it would be to have the stick short enough to go under my knee. But then, flying with my left hand, I couldn't drive it under that knee anyway. >My sticks hit my legs when near full aft. I only get >4" of travel, 2" either side. This makes for a >landing cross wind limitation. I need to move my >stick angle fwd to nearer the panel to get better >deflection. That adjustment is to come. It hasn't >been a problem yet and I have a few better mods to do Yes, I've got the same problem. >first. > >What about seat cushions? Smallest ones that you can >fly with? No, but they sure are comfortable. The builder put in some comfy seats, but you're right, I may have to sacrifice them, at least on the back. ... >Kurt S. S-5 Thanks Kurt, Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. Do not archive ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 08:50:51 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame - Part two. --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan At 02:16 AM 3/14/2005 +0100, you wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Torgeir Mortensen > >Here is the second one. > >Torgeir. Thanks Torgeir. Very thorough. I've found a couple of demagnetizers on the web for about $65. One's a loop and one's a brick (surface type). I wonder if I can demagnetize the tubes with the small brick sized unit and avoid pulling the engine. It sure would save some time, though I'm sure I'll have to pull the darn thing before this thing's done anyway. Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. Do not archive ________________________________ Message 57 ____________________________________ Time: 08:50:51 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Not Much Room --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan Steve, Did you have a dogleg bend in your stick? I think I'll chop mine down as much as possible, but with the dogleg bend it won't be all that much. Guy At 04:06 PM 3/13/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Steve Zakreski > >Guy > >I'm not very tall, but I did find the stick interfered with my knees a bit. >More important, I did not like the close clearance with the underside of the >instrument panel. So I cut a few inches off the bottom of the control stick >to lower it. Works great! > >SteveZ >Calgary ________________________________ Message 58 ____________________________________ Time: 08:50:52 PM PST US From: Guy Buchanan Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan At 04:15 PM 3/13/2005 -0600, you wrote: >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Hakes" ... > I started at the wind >screen and made circles as I moved it away. It worked. Jim, Did you do it with the engine in place? Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. ________________________________ Message 59 ____________________________________ Time: 09:04:21 PM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: longest build time --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" Nope, just read about a gut that took 37 years...see your a fast build.:) Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marco Menezes Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: longest build time --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes Tom: My Model 2 (s/n 374) was started by previous owner in 1989. She'll fly this spring. That has to be close to the world's record I would think. Marco Menezes N99KX do not archive Tom Tomlin wrote: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin" Thanks Bruce...that's a very impressive stat, considering other(most) kit manufacturers don't reach 10% of that. I hope to add another one to the completions column within the next month or so. 99.9% completed and still with much left to do. I wonder what the record is for the longest kitfox build time? Tom Tomlin IV Speedster Jab 3300 do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Harrington" To: Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" > > Hi Tom, > Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed. > A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs. > bh > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Tomlin" > >> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold? >> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit. > > --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 60 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:53 PM PST US From: "Jim Hakes" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Hakes" Yes, the engine was in place. It seemed like a hocus pocus thing, but it worked. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Buchanan" Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Demagnetizing Frame > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan > > At 04:15 PM 3/13/2005 -0600, you wrote: > >--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jim Hakes" > ... > > > I started at the wind > >screen and made circles as I moved it away. It worked. > > > Jim, > Did you do it with the engine in place? > > > Guy Buchanan > K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar. > > ________________________________ Message 61 ____________________________________ Time: 09:50:43 PM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: longest build time --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" I am going to bed...that was guy not gut though you need both. Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: longest build time --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Rick" Nope, just read about a gut that took 37 years...see your a fast build.:) Rick -----Original Message----- From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marco Menezes Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: longest build time --> Kitfox-List message posted by: Marco Menezes Tom: My Model 2 (s/n 374) was started by previous owner in 1989. She'll fly this spring. That has to be close to the world's record I would think. Marco Menezes N99KX do not archive Tom Tomlin wrote: --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Tom Tomlin" Thanks Bruce...that's a very impressive stat, considering other(most) kit manufacturers don't reach 10% of that. I hope to add another one to the completions column within the next month or so. 99.9% completed and still with much left to do. I wonder what the record is for the longest kitfox build time? Tom Tomlin IV Speedster Jab 3300 do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Harrington" To: Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: why do some hate kitfoxes? > --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Bruce Harrington" > > Hi Tom, > Last I heard a few years back was over 3000 completed. > A not 2 bad number compared to Van's RVs. > bh > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Tomlin" > >> Anyone know how many Kitfoxes have been sold? >> It was over 2000 in '92 when I bought my kit. > > --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 62 ____________________________________ Time: 10:35:57 PM PST US Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Smart Single Instruments by MGL Avionics From: r.thomas@za.pwc.com 06:35:12, Serialize complete at 14/03/2005 06:35:12 --> Kitfox-List message posted by: r.thomas@za.pwc.com Hi Jimmie These instruments are really good, well designed, and their LCD displays from a readability/light emission/brightness point of view are probably one of the best that I have seen at this end of the market. I do not have one installed, I have another brand of instrument doing something similar, but I wish I could swop it for the MGL. From other owners who have the MGL installed, they have indicated that MGL's backup is also excellent. Regards Roger "Jimmie Blackwell" Sent by: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com 14/03/2005 12:46 AM Please respond to kitfox-list@matronics.com To cc Subject Kitfox-List: Smart Single Instruments by MGL Avionics Size: 4 Kb --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Jimmie Blackwell" I am considering getting the Attitude Reference System from MGL Avionics. Has anyone on the list used one and if so would like to have your assessment of this instrument? Jimmie The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.